[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Enterprise Architecture - Example ofBed vs

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Doug McDavid <dougmcdavid@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:38:09 -0700
Message-id: <AANLkTi=ARPZM=jrt_Fv=sG2e5duMp7TG_fSxF2awccy7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@Jack -- Nice move into the open field!

@John -- I actually have always appreciated your ascetic esthetic about your tools.   I'm not much an early adopter, myself, but I got my current job off of LinkedIn, so I have a warm feeling for the old joint!

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:07 PM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Doug, Ferenc, Pavithra, and Jack,

DMcD> Thanks for this statement, John. It helps amplify the point I
> made on the Enterprise Architecture  forum on LinkedIn...

I'm glad that it helps.

(But by the way, your point shows why I don't use LinkedIn. Ontolog
Forum is open to everybody, and it is indexed by all the search
engines.  LinkedIn blocks open sharing.  I don't like that.)

DMcD> Instead of efforts to nail down the one true meaning of some term,
> I believe it is more helpful to open up proliferations of meaning-
> capture for more complete understandings of the domains being
> subjected to various well-meaning interventions.

I strongly agree.

FK> the inheritance of a property is obvious, nothing to write home about.

I agree.  But that is true of all rules of inference in logic:
modus ponens; substituting a value for a universally quantified
variable; or noting that A&B is equivalent to B&A.

The repeated combination of a lot operations that are trivial
and obvious can sometimes add up to something significant.
But I admit that they might not be significant.  For example,

         On Selecting a Thesis Topic

               By Henry Kautz

     If your thesis is utterly vacuous,
     Use first-order predicate calculus.
         With sufficient formality
         The sheerest banality
     Will be hailed by all as miraculous.

     If your thesis is quite indefensible,
     Reach for semantics intensional.
         Over Montague grammar
         Your committee will stammer
     Not admitting it's incomprehensible.

PK> When there is a one to one relationship between things, and such
> terms are used in an interchangeable way, it does not cause any
> design problem with accuracy .. but need semantic explanation.

I agree.  But terms that are subtly different may be interchangeable
in one application, but not in another.  For example, consider a baby
at one point in time and the "same" individual 20 years later.

JR> Could it be that we have not included context-based 'nyms' in our
> ontologies because of the difficulties encountered in processing
> them with von Neumann computers?  Will the advent of massively
> parallel processors that can mesh nets efficiently open ontology
> design thinking and practice?

Different algorithms and reasoning methods can address many of
these issues.  I'll admit that parallel hardware can open up
new methods that were impractical with older technology.  But
a lot can be done with better ways of using current hardware.

Doug McDavid
Skype: dougmcdavid
Mobile: 916-549-4600
Second Life: Doug McDavid
Web: enterprisology.com

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>